Trump Announces Plan to Ship 150 Million Rapid Coronavirus Tests

With many schools and businesses all across the country planning to reopen soon, the Trump administration announced a plan on Monday to distribute over 150 million rapid coronavirus test kits. These “game changing” test kits were made by Abbott Laboratories and can quickly and efficiently determine whether or not a patient has contracted coronavirus. 100 million of the total 150 million tests “will be given to states and territories as support efforts to reopen their economies and schools immediately and [as] fast as they can,” and 50 million of the test kits will go “to protect the most vulnerable communities” such as nursing homes, hospice care, historically black colleges, etc.

Trump is taking a new approach to fighting the coronavirus issue and is beginning to encourage testing among states and cities, which many see as a step in the right direction. Many experts, including Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist from John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public health, are pleased that the federal government is “trying to invest in technologies that would expand the number of tests that could be done in the US.” Furthermore, although these tests are aimed to help reopen schools and businesses, the federal administration is giving these kits to the state governments and allowing them to choose how they will be distributed, although they do encourage states to follow what the Trump Administration is aiming for.

This freedom given to states may seem positive in theory, but there are many issues with the overall plan. According to many states, there is a big lack of communication and planning between states and the federal government. Many health officials from states claim that they are given no say to the distribution of the kits and many facilities are given little to no notice as to when the kits are being delivered. This lack of planning has irritated many states, with one state official claiming that “[The Trump Administration’s] approach is to just throw things over the fence to the states and to say, ‘take this, and deal with the problem.’” On top of all of that, providing 150 million test kits may seem to be a good improvement, but “150 million tests is really a very small drop in the bucket, considering how these tests are envisioned to be used,” according to Nuzzo. So although sending these kits is a positive action for the federal administration in their efforts to end the coronavirus pandemic, much more action and planning must be done to effectively stop the disease from spreading.

Source 1: NY Times

Source 2: Washington Post

Source 3: CNN

Astronaut Mark Kelly's Arizona Senator Race Could Prevent Trump from Choosing the Replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg

 

Mark Kelly, a former astronaut, is running as candidate for Senator of Arizona. He is at a potential power position at the moment, especially with such a close race between him and republican Martha McSally. If Kelly wins, the Senate would have enough democratic votes to prevent President Trump from nominating a new Supreme Court Justice: “'If Mark Kelly comes out on top, HE could block President Trump’s supreme court Nominee from being confirmed,'" quoted McSally (The Guardian). 

However, the implications if Kelly wins aren't limited to the new replacement for Ginsberg. Firstly, Arizona has been voting republican for the past decade, and the switch in the vote towards Kelly, a democrat, could mark the shift in Arizona's political stance. Overall, in the United States, this means a larger representation for democrats. More states have Republican Senators than democratic, but less of the population votes republican. This is because there are a lot of relatively (compared to more populous states, such as California and New York) small republican states that have a lot of seats in the Senate, one of these being Arizona. Arizona's shift from voting for a republican senator to voting for a democratic one may mark the shift in other states that have close races between their own senators. 

The second implication if Kelly is selected as senator is that abortion rights would not be as threatened, as there would be more time for the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice if Biden is nominated, rather than having Trump's republican nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. This directly connects to what we talked about previously in class in regards to the Constitution. Representation isn't entirely democratic, as Congress is split both into the House and Senate. Thus, we have conflicts like this one, where parties are fighting over control of the Senate. Although this is always happening, this is an especially crucial moment, as it determines which party gets to choose a Supreme Court Justice. If the Republican Party wins, that could spell the end to many abortion rights that the democrats, who take up the largest portion of the population, desire. Although this isn't entirely democratic, it does prevent majority factions from taking over. However, if Kelly becomes Senator, he will be able to help push against electing an anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice until the coming presidential election, allowing the larger democrat majority to have more control over abortion rights.

Source 1:Associated Press News 

Source 2:CNBC

Source 3:The Guardian

Mulan live action challenges representation vs ethics

 "Fun" Blog Post 

Maybe not all Disney cartoons should be made into live action movies. The live action remix of Mulan was a miss, and not just because of missing Mushu, Cricket, Shang, the entire soundtrack, and having a generally lukewarm plot. 

The plethora of issues starts with lead actress Liu Yifei publical expressing her support for the Hong Kong police, infamously known for utilizing brute force, over the pro-democracy protesters. Moreover, Disney was under fire for shooting parts of the movie in the Xinjiang province where millions of Uighurs are being held in internment camps. Disney stated that the majority of the film was shot in New Zealand with only 20 locations being filmed in China but nevertheless, #BoycottMulan trended on Twitter with many people criticizing the film's execution. Hollywood has always had a difficult time navigating the Chinese movie industry considering the web of censorship laws and I assume that several of the modifications made to the movie were meant to appeal to the Chinese government for the sake of marketing. 

An issue I had with the film was its misrepresentation of feminism and the Chinese culture in general. Chinese citizens described the film as having a "superficial understanding of China" and turns out, while  people on screen were asian, everyone one behind the camera from the writers, costume designers, and directors, were all caucasian. Growing up, I never saw asian people portrayed in mainstream media beyond the token nerdy and awkward side character. However, as Hollywood became more racially aware, films such as "Crazy Rich Asians" became a monumental step of progress. I am disappointed that what could've been a fantastic step for asian representation in media has become quite an embarrassment to associate with. Do filmmakers in Hollywood have a responsibility to progress social change? To what extent can they pursue a dramatized and not entirely accurate narrative? 

New York Times Why Calls to Boycott ‘Mulan’ Over Concerns About China Are Growing

Insider 'Mulan' is Disney's best live-action remake to date and well worth the wait

Los Angeles Times How Disney’s ‘Mulan’ became one of 2020’s most controversial movies

Epic Games Versus Apple Court Disputes

On August 13, 2020, Apple decided to remove Fortnite, one of the most popular games created by game producer Epic Games, because Epic Games had found a way to evade the 30% in-app purchase cut that Apple typically takes from all apps on the App Store. This led to Epic Games suing Apple, and then Apple suing Epic Games. On top of removing Fortnite, Apple also issued a statement saying that they would remove all games with Epic Games' physics engines, known as Unreal Engine. Unreal Engine is used by thousands of small IOS game developers, and could mean that they not only lose the original 30% cut of all original in-app purchases, but lose almost all, if not all, of their business. This is because they would no longer be supported on IOS devices until they no longer used Unreal Engine. Moreover, this isn't just a push for one app produced by a large company; these changes could spell either great or horrible news for many smaller developers. If Unreal Engine is revoked permanently, many people could be put out of work. However, if the 30% cut of Apple's take is reduced to a more agreeable amount, which several companies have proposed as being 20%, it could help both smaller and larger business that operate under the App Store. According to NPR's correspondent Kenny Malone, this is unlikely to happen: "Apple decides that no one else gets to have an app store on the iPhone." Because Apple owns the only App Store, the App Store has no commission competition, and can charge any price they want on apps if they want to stick with the IOS. Furthermore, the IOS is such a dominant phone operating system that it is hard for app developers to have any choice. This has started companies such Epic Games and Facebook to publicly push for higher commissions. 

At the moment, Apple won't budge, but the court can rule to require a higher minimum commission for app developers. This brings in the topic of how our government is involved in this process. Should the government be allowed to stop Apple from charging such hefty fees? Is it acceptable that Epic Games tried to evade App Store payment. Most importantly, the issue that is being addressed for not only Apple, but other large technology corporations, such as Google, is whether or not it is acceptable to ban a specific way of developing applications to limit a competitor, with the primary example being Apple's pending ban of Unreal Engine. Overall, this debate really puts into question how much control over the online market the U.S. government should have.

Going back to the questions of what a government should or shouldn't have control over, there remain several questions:

1.Should the government be allowed to stop Apple from charging hefty in-app purchase commissions?

2.Is it acceptable that Epic Games tried to evade App Store in-app purchase payment?

3.Should companies be allowed to limit their competitors within their own markets?

Source 1: New York Times 

Source 2: NPR

Source 3: Washington Post

California Order Bans Sales Of Gasoline-Powered Vehicles By 2035

Last Wednesday, Governor Newsom issued an executive order banning the sale new gas-powered cars and trucks by 2035, and medium/heavy-duty vehicles such as larger trucks and buses by 2045. Under this law, owning gas-powered cars and selling them used would still be allowed, though the aim is to have only zero-emission vehicles on the road as soon as possible.  The order comes as a response to the devastating wildfires that continue to burn in huge areas of the state, with the goal of fighting the climate change that has caused the fires to be more destructive than ever before. 

The legality of the ban is being challenged in court by the Trump administration, as part of the ongoing battle over California's authority to regulate tailpipe emissions.Their current authority was established by the 1970 Clean Air Act, which the administration is trying to strip from them in order to enforce more lenient rules to cover the entire nation. The fate of the gas-powered vehicles ban likely hangs in the balance of what the court decides regarding that authority, and its revocation could mean that the ban would be gone as well. 

The ban has been criticized on the grounds of being a distraction from real issues, with a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research arguing that "Driving cars is not what causes forest fires or makes them worse," and that "Electric cars might not have emissions at a tailpipe, but they do have emissions at the power plant." Regardless, only time will tell whether the ban lives to see its enforcement in 2035, and if it does, whether it will have its intended effect on California emissions. 

Source 1: NPR

Source 2: WSJ

Source 3: Executive Order

Oregon seeks to review police protest responses

When Black Lives Matter protests began in June, the saturated social media posts, television lives and speeches made the issue nearly impossible to ignore. Yet, despite the decreased presence on Instagram feeds today, the protests are still in the streets, months later. Most infamously, the violent Oregon protests are continuing, despite the state's inability to control and maintain peace and order on the streets.

Sparked by the public condemnation from Oregan residents, Gov. Kate Brown signed Executive Order 20-54, declaring a state of emergency on May 13, 2020. Following the order, Gov. Brown has requested aid from police departments in order to review “any alleged incidents” of police brutality. In hopes of building strong community trust, Brown is working with local police sheriffs and chiefs in order to properly assess and appropriately reprimand any cases deemed inexcusable.

“Journalists and law enforcement officers have difficult jobs to do during these demonstrations, but I do still believe that we can protect free speech and keep the peace,” said Gov. Brown.

With numerous videos displaying the harsh treatment of innocent protesters, fotographers and journalists, many are still hoping to hold everyone accountable and aren’t compromising for justice. Many are also asking Gov. Brown to hire an independent prosecutor on the case, in order to ensure fair treatment and eliminate any bias or lesser punishment.

“Police abuse of protesters, journalists, legal observers, medics, and bystanders must be stopped," said Kelly Simon, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In order to end such civil unrest, Gov. Brown has requested all the police enforcement possible, but many neighboring countries are refusing to send in more forces to Oregon.

“Due to the lack of support for public safety operations, the associated liability to agencies who would be assisting in Portland and the lack of accountability for those arrested committing criminal acts,” said the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police.

Moreover, noticeable rifts have grown between left-wing protest opposers and Proud Boys, a far-right and neo-fascist organization, engaging in political violence. With Proud Boys instigating arguments and riling up peaceful bystanders, necessary legal action is required to put an end to this ongoing violence.

“When free expression is fueled by hate and coupled with an intent to incite violence, then I need to do everything I can to ensure the safety of Oregonians,” Gov. Brown said.

Citizens are still calling for justice, fueled by the mistreatment by police officers and hate filled attacks on peaceful protestors. While any reevaluation of police actions will not undo the years of racism and discrimination against minorities in America, such a change will hopefully spark a greater acceptance for much needed police reform and funding reallocation towards addressing the roots of these protests.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

New York Times Investigation Discovers Trump Only Paid $750 For Income Taxes In 2016, 2017

Throughout the past few years, the subject of the president's tax returns, namely his refusal to release them for the public to scrutinize, has been brought up time and time again. For those who don't have to pay federal income tax, tax returns are forms filed with the IRS that include information used to calculate how much that person or company gets taxed. These forms usually consist of the income and tax deductions, along with other information of the entity being taxed. 

Since the 1970s, every president of the United States has released their tax returns in some form to the public. This tradition was eventually broken by Donald Trump, although he had initially promised to uphold it when he ran for president. Since then, the battle over his tax returns has been going on, with Trump claiming that he isn't able to release them while under audit, though this has been refuted by the IRS. 

A recent investigation undertaken by the New York Times revealed that Trump has paid zero income tax in 10 of the last 15 years, and paid only $750 each in 2016 and 2017. This revelation comes from the Times investigation gaining access to his tax return data, the same data that he has avoided releasing for years. The Times also reported that Trump has written off many business expenses that should have been taxed, and that he will need to pay back hundreds of millions of dollars in loans in the next few years. Trump has denied the validity of the investigation's results, with a lawyer for the Trump Organization saying: "Most, if not all, of the facts seem to be inaccurate."

Regardless of whether the Times investigation is completely accurate or not, Trump could soon be in deep trouble due to the loans he has yet to pay off, his ongoing battle against the IRS regarding a $72.9 million tax refund, and the fact that many of his ventures are bleeding money, such as his golf courses and hotels. Additionally, the exposure of his tax-avoiding ways could further damage his public image and trustworthiness, especially among those who are on the fence about supporting him during the coming election. With this in mind, the investigation could be seen as one of the factors that led to Trump potentially losing the presidency, depending on the election's results. 

Source 1: The New York Times

Source 2: NPR

Source 3: Reuters

Maryland leads by banning styrofoam food service products, in hopes that others soon follow

After many determined efforts, Maryland has officially declared a ban on styrofoam packaging for restaurants and schools, which is set to go into effect on Oct. 1. 

The plastics are petroleum-based non-biodegradable, as it takes over 500 years to decompose. Styrofoam has proven to negatively harm any surrounding wildlife, human health and bodies of water; and the economy is no exception.

While several other Maryland counties have already enforced the ban on foam containers, this recent legislation, once in effect, will be much stricter, in hopes of implementing long term environmental policy reform. 

The bill was proposed twice by Democratic Delegate Brooke Lierman before finally passing in the General Assembly in 2019. 

“There’s really a steadily growing awareness of the real and present harm to the single-use plastics cause,” Lierman said. “Businesses and Marylanders are even more alarmed by this, and really looking to the government to come up with solutions for this waste.”

Despite the positive support for the cause, many are still torn on the law. According to the Baltimore Sun, many environmentalists are very optimistic that the law will allow the natural environment to heal, at a time where the effects of climate change will soon become irreversible.

While styrofoam's environmentally alternative plastic will end up in the same landfills and float among the same oceanic wildlife, experts still believe it is better than the toxic foam.

However, according to CNN, the American Chemistry Council is in opposition of the law, claiming that the packaging is not only essential to many food service industries, but it is also the environmentally friendlier option when looking to reduce food waste.

Regardless of the split opinions, Maryland is optimistic that the legislation will encourage more states to adopt similar bans in order to reduce their carbon footprint. Our home has been treated poorly for too long, and we must continue to implement creative and timely solutions, before we are unable to save our planet.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Division within the senate over Trump's nomination

    The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg created an opening in the Supreme Court, which both sides want to use for their advantage. President Donald Trump vowed to nominate another woman to the Supreme Court to fill the spot left by Ginsburg’s death. Trump is attempting to fill the court before the election takes place later this year. Yesterday, Trump gave his nomination for Amy Coney Barrett. It now falls to the Republican controlled Senate to accept the nomination and place Judge Barrett within the Supreme Court. 

The Republicans within the Senate are willing to back Trump and push Barrett through and onto the Supreme Court. In fact many Republicans believe it will be filled before the election, which would mark the fast appointment to the Supreme Court within U.S. history. Some Republicans believe it is possible for confirmation to come after the election. The Senate plans to begin the hearings for the nominee on October 12, just a couple of weeks away. 

The Senate judiciary chairman, Lindsey Graham said this to Fox news, "So, we'll start on October 12, and more than half of the Supreme Court justices who have had hearings were done within16 days or less.”

After the Senate Judiciary Committee is done, it falls to Mitch McConnell and other Republicans to push the nomination through to the Supreme Court. This push by Republicans to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court is the opposite of the reaction in 2016.  The Republican senators are expecting to face retaliation from the Democrats in the Senate for their actions in 2016 stalling Obama’s nomination. 

(Photo of Mitch McConnell from Vogue)

The Democrats fear that the appointment of the highly conservative Barrett to the court can harm the Affordable Care Act and the Roe v Wade case. Democrats within the Senate plan to do all that is possible to delay appointment of Barrett to the Supreme Court. Democrats seem to believe that they will be able  to extend the process in order to delay the appointment until after the election.

The struggle for the Supreme Court nomination and drive to completion is a perfect example of politics within the US. Both sides are attempting to impact the process for either own gain. The Democrats want to delay blocking Republican control of the court. On the other hand, the Republicans need a fast process in order to cement control of the court.  That way, even if Trump loses the election, the Republicans will control at least one branch of government. 

The Hill - GOP senators confident Trump pick to be confirmed by November

Politico - Senate Dems ready tactics to muck up Supreme Court confirmation

CNN - Graham: Senate Judiciary Committee will approve Barrett on October 22

Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court

Washington Post: Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, in 3 minutes

A couple people posted about Trump filling the Supreme Court vacancy before the next election and he seems to have followed up on his word. On September 26, Judge Amy Coney Barrett accepted President Trump's nomination to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Trump will likely force the Senate for confirm her seat just 37 days before the election and with a 53-47 Republican majority in the Senate, Judge Barrett could skew the Supreme Court to a 6-3 conservative majority. 

Judge Barrett is largely considered the complete opposite of Justice Ginsburg. While Justice Ginsburg believed in the "living, evolving Constitution," Judge Barrett believes judges should stick to the original intentions of the Constitution, reflecting the views of Justice Antonin Scalia whom she clerked for nearly twenty years ago. If confirmed, she would be the 5th woman ever on the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett has championed conservative views through nearly 100 written opinions and even more votes expressing her pro life agenda and her desire to overturn Roe vs. Wade and her disagreement with the Affordable Care Act. 

Judge Barrett often emphasis the separation between courts and legislation/policy and refrained from expressing her personal views in public hearings stating "Judges are not policy makers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.” Moreover, Judge Barrett asserts that Courts should not be the mechanism for social change, which ironically was a huge aspect of Justice Ginsberg's legacy. Critics are upset with the idea that during such a period of "racial awareness," Trump would pick a white woman as opposed to a person of color. Additionally, considering the checks and balances of the government, Judge Barrett's confirmation could mean that progressive bills could be blocked and certain rights could be revoked. 

This will likely be one of the most important Supreme Court nominations within our lifetime so far. Judge Barrett is only 48 and, if appointed, would be the youngest judge meaning she has the potential to influence the Courts for decades to come. Her nomination will only aggravate the already polarized political atmosphere and I'm pessimistic about any bipartisanship collaboration or unity. Our only way of gaining any leverage is through voting and I urge you to do so if you are able. 

 New York Times Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett to Fill Ginsburg’s Seat on the Supreme Court

Fox News Amy Coney Barrett accepts Supreme Court nomination, pledges to 'faithfully and impartially discharge' duties

Washington Post Amy Coney Barrett’s judicial record should alarm liberals

CNN (Multiple opinion pieces) Amy Coney Barrett a perfect choice for half of America

Kentucky grand jury settles Breonna Taylor case

On March 13, Breonna Taylor was killed by police executing a "no knock" warrant and after nearly six months of protests, the Kentucky grand jury indicted Brett Hankison on three counts of wanton endangerment. Wanton endangerment, where Hankison shot through neighbor's window without a "clear line of site," is considered a Class D felony meaning Hankison will only serve between one and five years in prison. No one was charged for Taylor's death and the other two officers involved with the incident will not be charged according to the attorney general. 

I was surprised by how slowly officials navigated this case. In George Floyd's case, which occurred in late May, the four officers were arrested and prosecuted within 2-3 weeks of Floyd's death. Both killings took place as the Black Lives Matter movement was gaining widespread traction through news and social media. Would public outrage play a role in why Minneapolis officials responded so quickly? Why didn't Louisville officials respond with the same urgency? 

For the past few months, people have been scrutinizing the current policing systems and the number loopholes that allow police officers to be governed by essentially a completely different set of standards from the general public. Factors such as qualified immunity and strong police unions essentially allow police officers to get away with misconduct. In his segment on the The Daily Social Distancing Show, Trevor Noah asks "Who is winning this whole thing?" Is it the police officers? A particular political party? A particular race? The fact of the matter is, no one is winning. It's terrifying that our court systems, which are that are universally implemented to uphold justice, would allow for a death to be completely unpunished. 

ABC News -  Timeline: Inside the investigation of Breonna Taylor's killing and its aftermath

New York Times - What We Know About Breonna Taylor’s Case and Death

CNN - Police declare unlawful assembly after windows shattered during Breonna Taylor protests

YouTube: The Broken Policing System | Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj

What happens if Pres. Trump refuses to leave office peacefully?

As if the 2020 election could not become more monumentous, many Americans are worried that Pres. Trump will refuse to leave office, even if rightfully voted out. With overworked election officials and COVID-19 concerns relying on mail in ballots, the election process will grow even more prolonged, as citizens will finally know the election outcome in late winter.

Despite such delays, Pres. Trump has repeatedly threatened to use force in order to keep his seat in office. Luckily, as alarming as his election disputes are, there are still enough safeguards in place from allowing any real system disruptions. Additionally, many public figures have attempted to reassure the public, vowing that no such abuses of power will be allowed. 

"Any suggestion that a president might not respect this Constitutional guarantee is both unthinkable and unacceptable," said GOP Sen. Mitt Romney.

While years ago, such a possible risk would be unfathomable, this election has demonstrated the call for concern and need to reevaluate measures in order to prevent such a chaotic and horrific time in American history from repeating. 

Assuming that the election will be a close call, political theorists have already determined the expected route in electing the 46th president. While Democratic candidate Joe Biden can expect popular votes from most urban states, swing states Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan may pose an even bigger threat, resulting in conflicting electoral certificates. If this happens, the chambers in Congress must vote on which certificate to accept, but this decision will soon lead to a stalemate. As described by The Guardian, if the Republican Senate rejects the governors’ certificate and accepts the legislatures’, the Democratic House of Representatives will vote the opposite, resulting in political gridlock. It is agreed upon that the Supreme Court should not break the deadlock and the decision is up to the Electoral College.

Contrastingly, if Pres. Trump loses in votes in the popular and electoral vote, his violent uprising and refusal to leave will be even more difficult to justify.

Clearly this likely, yet unfavorable outcome will only add to the uneasiness felt by Americans as Election Day nears. The country is truly on the verge of political collapse and the obvious and necessary changes could not come sooner. 2020 has been a call to action in more areas than one, and unfortunately, the road to stability has only just begun. So buckle up, as we are about to participate in some of the influential political decisions which will undoubtedly affect the future of the U.S. for centuries to come.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Coronavirus Vaccines Are Still Being Tested, With Multiple Progressing To Phase 3

Vaccines are a familiar concept to most people, and the COVID-19 vaccines are no different. Introducing something harmless that mimics the disease into the body triggers the immune system to produce antibodies, which allow the body to combat the actual disease more effectively in the future. Some vaccines last for many years, such as the measles vaccine, while others such as the flu vaccine have to be given every year and don't provide full immunity against the disease.

The coronavirus vaccines are of the latter kind, with people receiving the vaccine likely needing a booster shot after a year. Additionally, they most likely won't provide full immunity, with a leading researcher stating: "What we really want from a vaccine is to stop people being admitted to hospital, going into intensive care and dying."

Trials of the vaccines have seen results, with 9 vaccines from companies in China, Russia, Germany, the UK, and the US progressing to phase 3 trials. In these trials, a vaccine is given to a group of people, while another group is given a placebo. After a certain number of people across both groups contracts the disease, the trial ends and the results are analyzed. For the coronavirus vaccines, between 30,000 and 60,000 people are participating in the trials for each company, with a vaccine being considered a success if it's able to reduce the severity of the disease in 50% or more of those vaccinated.

Results of some of these trials are starting to be analyzed, and many countries have already loaded up on doses of the vaccines when they finally begin production. The US, UK, and Canada in particular have preordered the most and from multiple companies, with at least 5 doses purchased for every person in that country. A limited supply of those doses could be available for vulnerable groups as early as the end of this year, while the general public could have to wait until mid-2021 to vaccinated. Even still, people would likely have to wear masks and follow social distancing when in public.

Source 1: Financial Times

Source 2: CBS

Source 3: CNN

American teens can rest assured, as TikTok defies ban threats

To the thousands of TikTok “influencers,” who have achieved their worldwide fame through their catchy dances, funny vlogs, and a plethora of other talents, do not fear: TikTok is not going anywhere.

On Saturday, the Commerce Department delayed any bans on TikTok due to the Trump administration's insubstantial evidence proving the possible national security threats from the popular platform, according to NPR. After holding off on ban threats, Pres. Trump has looked into making a deal with Chinese company, ByteDance, the original creators and current owners of TikTok. Once handed over to American companies, Oracle and Walmart, TikTok would cut most ties with China altogether.

However, many details are still undecided. Despite Pres. Trump’s refusal to accept the deal without owning the majority stake over the app, Chinese creators have remained unbudging in their statement to keep 80 percent of TikTok. They have also publicly defended their firm right to hold onto the secret algorithms and technology powers over the app, even if it becomes TikTok Global.

                                       

Additionally, with the upcoming election threatening Trump’s agenda, he has furthered his TikTok stance as an overall crackdown on any possible Chinese technology infiltrations within national security, as stated by Politico.

Even though many details of the deal remain unknown, there is little cause for concern in the future for the millions of users. TikTok, whether it stays under Chinese control, or is bought over by a U.S. company, is facing no adequate grounds for a ban. So, relax, continue on with your lives and make sure to look up from your devices every now and then, because TikTok is here to stay.

Source 1

Source 2
Source 3

Source 4

The 2020 US Census Is Set To End Early, Despite Warnings From Census Bureau

The United States census is a count of every living person in the US and its territories, and is used to determine the number of seats each state will have in the House of Representatives, as well as drawing the congressional and state legislative districts. It's mandated by the Constitution, being an example of one of the federal government's powers.

Due to the coronavirus pandemic, this year's census was originally planned to end months later than usual, with the official counting set to end on October 31st and the final deadline on December 31st. However, this schedule has now been shortened to end on September 30th, in order to allow more time for the processing of the data before the final deadline at the end of the year. This decision was not made by the Census Bureau, the government agency that conducts the census every decade. Rather, it was likely caused by a directive issued by President Trump that would exclude undocumented immigrants from being counted in the census, which was blocked by a judicial panel.

According to recent reports, before the decision was made, the Census Bureau cautioned against the shortening of the timeline, with an internal document stating that the quality of the result would be "unacceptable for a Constitutionally-mandated national activity." Additionally, the document warned that this move could cause the census results to be viewed with skepticism, due to the abrupt reversal from advocating for an extended timeline to the sudden decision to shorten it. 

The scientific advisory committee to the Bureau wrote in their recommendations that "When the weather isn't right, we postpone the launching of rockets into space," and that "the same should be true of the decennial enumeration..." Currently, some people are trying to do just that, with federal judges hearing lawsuits aiming to re-extend the census to its original date of the end of October. Is it right for the administration to shorten the census, even if it could affect the accuracy of the results, which are vital for determining the House of Representatives and congressional districts?

Source 1: NPR
Source 2: ABC News
Source 3: The Guardian
Census Bureau Document

GOP's Supreme Court hypocrisy: eating their own words

Video

 Washington Post: GOP Senators confronted by past comments on Supreme Court nomination 

"I want you to use my words against me, if there is a republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham says let's let the next president...make that nomination and you can you my words against me and you'd be absolutely right... we are setting the precedent."  

Such words were stated by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in a 2016 amidst declining President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Fellow GOP members, including Senate majority leader Mitch Mcconnell, and senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, and Marco Rubio all echoed such views asserting that they must wait for the following election to take place before confirming a judge. However, following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's death just 46 days from the election (which is the 2nd closest in US history), the very same senators are not pushing for a Justice to be appointed.

Criticism of such hypocrisy is valid. By blatantly switching sides, the public and media have blamed the GOP for being "power hungry" and manipulative. However, in 2016, the GOP's opposition to Garland's nomination was based off the idea that the Senate had a republican majority form the 2014 midterm elections and they believed that by waiting a year, the could further expand the Republican party within Congress. This time around, not only do they still have a republican majority, they also have a republican president who would likely nominate a conservative justice, all factors that would favor the GOP. 

We've discussed in class the unconstitutional aspect of both the Senate and Supreme Court and whether such bodies of government possess unproportional power. I'm honestly not surprised by the flip because politicians are always trying to advance their own narrative and if the scenario were flipped, I believe Democrats would be displaying the same hypocrisy. Are the republicans afraid that if they wait for the next cycle that they will lose the Senate majority and Trump? Is this a scramble for establish the 6-3 conservative to progressive ratio?

Source 1: Washington Post

Source 2: Politico

Source 3: CNN

Source 4: People

Source 5: New York Times 

Judge Temporarily Stops Trump's WeChat Ban

   

    This morning, federal judge Laurel Beeler issued a temporary injunction against Trump's executive order to ban WeChat, a Chinese social media app, from operating in the U.S. An injunction is a court order that stops someone from doing a certain thing. In this case, the injunction has prevented WeChat from getting banned tonight at midnight on the grounds that a ban would potentially inhibit users' first amendment rights. This order exemplifies the power of checks and balances, as an executive order was checked by a federal judge who deemed it unconstitutional.

    According to Beeler, "WeChat is effectively the only means of communication for many in the community, not only because China bans other apps, but also because Chinese speakers with limited English proficiency have no options other than WeChat" (basically the app is an important means of conversation between Chinese-Americans and family members in China, and a ban would prevent these users from contacting each other). The defendants (the Commerce Department) made the claim that the app is a national security threat and that it could provide data to the Chinese government, but Beeler felt that this was not enough evidence to deem the ban as necessary, referencing Australia's decision to only ban WeChat on government devices.

                                       

    This decision definitely raises a question about where the line is drawn between freedom and national security. Should the government be able to censor apps it deems a threat to security at the expense of the freedoms of its citizens? And, given the context of Trump's previous statements on China (for example, calling the coronavirus the "Chinese flu"), do you think his executive order comes from a place of xenophobia, or just a concern for national security?

Source 1: NYTimes

Source 2: CNN

Source 3: Politico

Source 4: CNBC

The Mountain Vs. The Beast, Worlds Strongest join boxing?

Halfthor is on the left at  6’9 451 pounds, Eddie is on the right at 6’3 362 pounds

Many of you may not know this but one of the biggest fights to ever occur is happening in 2021. Halfthor Bjornson “The mountain” vs Eddie “The beast” Hall. Both of these men have performed in the World strongest man events and both have held the title of world strongest. Halfthor is also from the popular TV series Game Of Thrones. Eddie has not been on TV yet. These two have had a feud for a while now, and now have decided to settle it. Eddie held the deadlift world record for a couple of years. Then, Halfthor beat the record, but at his own gym. Eddie insisted that it did not count since it was not at an official event. If the deadlift does count, halthor would have beaten Eddie’s record by one Kilo. This constant bickering about who had the record led to a promoter company offering both of them million dollar contracts. Of course, they agreed.

So why watch this fight? These are two of the strongest men to ever live, and to put them in a ring together is a certain formula for a very entertaining fight. Both of these men have gotten to the top of their craft and know what being a champion feels like. In a way, this will determine who is stronger, grittier, and screppier. With this bout months away, these two are set to make history.

Halfthor’s World Record Deadlift

Eddie’s World Record Deadlift

Article on details of the fight

 

New York Creates a New Body Cam Policy

State Attorney General Letitia James said that this new policy of body cameras was put in place to keep the police transparent. 

The policy makes it so that if there is a killing of an unarmed civilian or police misconduct, the public will be aware of everything before and after the death or misconduct. Though many might see this as a way for there to be substantial evidence to put “bad” cops in jail, I believe that this favors both police and citizens. By releasing the bodycam footage right away, the public will decide what happened and not be fed their information by the media. The ability to think and process data for yourself is something that we need right now. With all these news sites taking advantage of our political climate, it is essential to see raw footage that cannot be swayed by opinion. If a police officer shot and killed a person, which is all the public knew, that would sound like like full blown murder. If the public knew that the reason the officer opened fire was that the man had run to his car, opened the door, and instead of entering the vehicle, he reached inside, then that might be seen as self defense. The context that the body cam provides will make it clear as to what happened.

Another reason why I think this policy is so helpful is that the police can no longer withhold their footage from the public. There will be concrete evidence as to why the police officer did what he did. If a citizen is following the officer's orders, and the officer conducts himself in an unprofessional manner, he will no longer be able to hide behind the police's shelter. With this policy in place, I think that many of the cops that frequently partake in misconduct will be persecuted and fairly judged by the publics eye. This policy in New York is going to be incredibly helpful for those who will unfortunately deal with police brutality and those police who will deal with misaccusations.

What else do you think we as a country need to do to make the police more transparent?

Do you think it is important that the police be transparent with the public?

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

 

43 Days away from Nov. 3: who will replace RBG?

After a decade-long fight with cancer, Justice Ruth Bater Ginsburg lost her final battle on Friday. However, her fight for gender equality and democracy will continue long after her passing. Serving on the Supreme Court for 27 years, Ginsburg was crucial in the fight for women's rights, redefining the 14th Amendment, and diligently swaying conservative judges towards passing influential voting rights legislation.

However, with less than two months from Election Day, many Americans are fearful as to the future of the vacant court seat. With republicans urging Trump to nominate another conservative, and democrats opposing such an abuse of power, the decision could not be more pressing. While Trump has a long list of potential nominations, it is very unlikely that the administration will be allowed to appoint a new justice so last minute.

Back in 2016, when Obama tried to nominate a new justice months before leaving office, Senator Mitch McConnell blocked the nomination, arguing for the new president to decide who should fill the vacancy. However, when asked to comment on his hypocritical vow to appoint a new justice under Trump’s term, Mr. McConnell claimed the situation was different, promising that the Senate would replace the late justice, despite the contradictory statements.

According to CNN, Pres. Trump told reporters that he would consider a female nomination, a surprise to many.

 

“I would say that a woman would be in first place," Trump said. "The choice of a woman would be appropriate.” 

Certainly, the implications of the nomination cannot be overlooked or downplayed. If Trump is cleared to nominate a justice of his choice, the Supreme Court will be swayed in a conservative direction for years to come. This will completely undermine the democracy of the federal government, due to the checks and balances set up by the Constitution. Luckily, the chances that a new justice will be nominated by Pres. Trump, undergo hearings and finally be nominated by the Senate is quite rare, due to the proximity to the upcoming election.

“Under no circumstances should the Senate consider a replacement for Justice Ginsburg until after the presidential inauguration,” said Calif. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. 

While the successor remains unknown, the message to the American people could not be clearer: VOTE. Whether you are 18 years of age, or eligible to pre-register, your vote matters today more than ever before. We have an obligation to protect this nation’s future by practicing the most fundamental democratic right, and vote!

pre- register to vote right now!

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3